The United States was founded on the principle of private ownership. We did not want a foreign government owning our resources or infringing on our personal rights. The mentality of the British crown was that as a colony we "belonged" to them and thus our resources were their resources. In other words we were taxed for the "common good" of enhancing the power of Great Britain.

And that was imperialist. It wasn't even as extreme as socialism. So when I say it's against our ideals I'm basing this on the foundation of our government system. The "founding fathers" were land owners and private businessmen. They were not labor union heads and did not desire living for the "common good of all" or whatever. In fact the United States was formed on the idea of separation, including from the thirteen STATES. The whole concept of individual states is derived from a shared understanding that different people have different needs, desires, abilities, policies, etc. They didn't want a universal, overreaching federal government. The only reason the Constitution was created to be somewhat stronger than the Articles of Confederation was because the Articles didn't have the legislative power to effectively present a united front to foreign countries. The states themselves wanted to keep their individuality.

And that's the key. If you do cultural studies of the U.S. you'll find we are a highly individualistic culture. We believe strongly in personal growth, personal education, personal success, personal ability. If I told you that I would be a good Marine officer because my father was a Marine officer you'd probably say "What does your father have to do with your ability?" In, say, China, I would put that on my resume' and it would hold significant weight.

Sure, there are people who come from collectivist cultures and ideals in the U.S. The vast majority, however, from all ends of the political spectrum were raised on the individualist side of the scale. Our first name is first and our last name is behind it. In Japan, a collectivist culture, the last name is first and the first name is behind it. Your family is more telling of who you are than you yourself are. This simply isn't true within the United States. I'm not making this up.

Socialism is nearly impossible to accept for individualistic cultures. Group ownership is practically a foreign concept. Even stocks are "yours." They are your commodity. You invest for individual gain.

jcd, I have no idea how the quotes or examples you used relate in any way to American attitudes towards socialism. When Jefferson wrong "all men are created equal" there is a key term people seem to forget...created. As in born. As in equal at the start. He never said people should stay equal! Then he would have said "all men are equal." His phrase was meant to explain a common American value that all individuals have their own potential for success. If asked him if he wanted an institutionalized system of equality where all men are "given" equality by the government he probably would have asked if you were insane.

That quote you use by Jefferson was based on John Lock's idea of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of property." Jefferson expanded the idea but ultimately the idea was that happiness was economic independence. As socialism posits a system where there is nothing independent about the economy I don't think either of these men would have been very happy with it. Likewise in the context the Declaration of Independence was never intended to be an official government document for the new United States but a statement to Britain about why they were separating from them. It isn't the Constitution and was never intended to be.

Again, public schooling is not socialist. Public schooling is not government ownership of the economy. Public school is a public works project exactly the same as roads, hospitals, fire stations, police, prison, etc. These things have existed in some way since the formation of the U.S. and were never "socialist." Heck they aren't even that liberal. Government support for education, transportation, and public services has existed at the state level since the formation of the United States. Jefferson's comments on education have nothing to do with socialism.

I would define "successful" as implementing the actual ideas of the system and improving the state of the country. North Korea is perhaps one of the worst places to live in the entire world. I would not in any way consider the death and fear of that place "successful." Cuba has only recently become somewhat stable, Vietnam's economy is just entering the second-world category (and they are still one of the leading UN violators of human rights), China is a massive human rights violator, and Chavez isn't exactly the nicest guy around. I'd have to do more research on every one of those governments but I know Egypt and India are not socialist in practice (Egypt, for instance, is a close ally of the U.S. and strong supporters of us).

You can say that governments that try socialism don't have true socialism so they don't work but that indicates socialism doesn't work. You can say all these governments actually have a socialist system but then you can't ignore complete failures such as North Korea, Mao's China, Stalin's USSR, Hitler's Germany, etc. Either way paints a dim picture. You could perhaps point to China's growing economy but then you'd have to ignore that they're more capitalist than we are. Huh.

The opposite of "socialist" you're talking about is "libertarian" when you talk about purely private schooling etc. The vast majority of the U.S. is not libertarian. We were not founded on libertarian (anarchistic) views. The key difference between a socialist policy and a democratic policy is that a democratic policy is voted for. If public schooling is the will of the people it cannot be socialist. Why? It was not simply decided by the government. The government didn't have the power to say "You know what would be cool? Public school! Here's the funds..." We had to elect representatives who then voted for the formation of public education institutions. If there were a majority change in opinion we could conceivably disband the public school system and use only private school. In a socialist system this would be impossible.

So again, socialism is bad because it completely disregards the democratic process and individual rights, both of which are integral to American political thinking. You can't call something socialist if it exists within these two frameworks. The process is key.

Jacquesne